DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites that the top step member is positioned in substantially the same horizontal plane as the trailer bed. However, there is no discussion in the written description providing for such an arrangement. Instead, the top step member is depicted to be positioned on top of the trailer bed while a tab projecting downwardly from the bottom surface of the top step secures the steps to a hole in the trailer bed. There is no written description showing how these elements can be arranged to be in the same plane while also having the under-mounted tab fitting within a hole in the trailer bed. Claims 2-14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, claim 12 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in is second and third lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, the term “longitudinal axis of the side members” is also indefinite as it is unclear what the longitudinal axis of the side members is describing. While it is clear that the elongated direction of the side members presents what can be interpreted to be a general longitudinal direction, but because this element is angled, it is unclear whether the longitudinal axis is the angled direction or is referencing the vertical direction. For examination purposes, this term is interpreted to mean the vertical direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (11,584,302) in view of Rolson (US 2020/0282911).
Regarding claims 1 (as best understood), 2, 4-5, 10, and 14, Jackson discloses a detachable trailer attachment comprising:
a pair of opposing side members (42a, 42b) extending from a bottom section to a top section, wherein each of the pair of opposing side members comprises (i) a planar back portion configured to be positioned adjacent to a trailer (see e.g. Figs. 4 and 5a), (ii) a front portion, (iii) an inner side wall, and (iv) an outer side wall (see Fig. 1 showing all of the sides of the side members 42);
a plurality of planar step members (44, 46, 48) substantially perpendicularly extending between and secured to the inner side walls of each of the pair of opposing side members (42a, 42b - see Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of step members comprise a top step member (44) positioned in the same horizontal plane as the top section of each of the pair of opposing side members (see Figs. 1 and 5a showing the top surface of step 44 being coplanar with the top of the side members 42), wherein the top step member (44) extends beyond the back portion of each of the pair of opposing side members (see Fig. 2 showing the top step 44 extending beyond the vertical rear wall of the side members 42a, 42b), wherein the portion of the top step (44) that extends away from the side members is attached to the trailer to secure the step to the trailer (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 2) and wherein the top step member (44) is positioned in substantially the same horizontal plane as the supporting trailer surface (see Fig. 5a showing the extending portion of the top step 44 parallel to and adjacent to the horizontal surface of the trailer) in use and provides a work platform positioned off a side of the trailer and configured to support the weight of a user.
While Jackson discloses that the step assembly is coupled to a trailer to ease access into the elevated work surfaces/trailer bed, it does not disclose that a tab is provided on the upper step to mount the step assembly to a trailer bed.
Rolson teaches another detachable trailer attachment having a plurality of steps that are mounted to a trailer bed (12). The top step member (20) having a tab (60) centrally positioned on a bottom portion of the top step member (see Fig. 1), wherein the tab (60) is configured to be removably inserted into an opening (see Fig. 1 and ¶0020) on the trailer bed (12). As shown in Fig. 1, this opening is along the outer peripheral edge of the trailer, but not disposed between the bed and a rail spaced therefrom.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the step accessory of Jackson to include an under-step extension mounting tab that engages a trailer bed hole as taught by Rolson to arrive at the claimed device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (under top step mounting tab) for another (top step connected mounting sleeve) to obtain predictable results (a step that can be secured to different portions of a trailer).
Regarding claim 6, Jackson discloses that the side members and steps can be welded together, which reads upon being a single integral structure when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term.
Regarding claim 12 (as best understood), while Jackson (and Rolson) provide for the steps to be angled way from the trailer to form a stair arrangement, they do not specifically disclose that the angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the side members is less than 50 degrees.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have the stair-configured steps to be angled away at less than 50 degrees, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be balance the considerations of how far the mounted stairs extend away from the vehicle while remaining readily ascendible.
Claims 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Rolson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horowitz et al. (5,255,757).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, while Jackson discloses that the side walls angle away to define a stair-like configuration, they do not disclose a widening side member configuration with the front wall angling sloping from bottom to top.
Horowitz teaches another detachable stair assembly including a pair of spaced side members (24, 26) having a planar rear wall and an angled front wall wherein the bottom section of the side members is greater than the width of the top section and the front wall slope from the bottom to the top (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the side members of the Jackson combination to have a widening angled configuration as taught by Horowitz to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a sidewall/stringer that is wider at the bottom than the top) for another (a sidewall/stringer having a more constant width) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a stair assembly that allows for a larger bottom step and/or provides more surface area along its back to stabilize the mounted step against the structure it is mounted to).
Regarding claim 13, Jackson does not disclose that its steps do not extend beyond the front portion of the side members.
Horowitz teaches that a detachable vehicle stair assembly having its plurality of steps arranged upon the side members in a manner that does not extend beyond the front portion of the side members (see Fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the side members of the Jackson combination to have flush/inwardly recessed steps as taught by Horowitz to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a stair assembly with flush/recessed steps) for another (a stair assembly with outwardly projecting steps) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a stair assembly fully supports its stair treads (see supporting bracing in Fig. 2 of Horowitz).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Rolson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krish (US 2002/0189903).
Regarding claim 7, Jackson does not disclose handrail slots.
Krish teaches another detachable truck step assembly including a pair of side members (22) that support a plurality of steps between their inner surfaces and further including a pair of slots (46) on a portion of the outer side wall of a top section of the opposing side members (see Fig. 3), wherein the slot is configured to accept a handrail member (62) to assist a user moving up and down the detachable step attachment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the step assembly of the Jackson combination to have side-mounted handrail slots as taught by Kim to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing handrails to a ladder/stair assembly to improve user safety) to known devices (e.g., detachable vehicle-mounted step assemblies) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the handrail slot (46) of Krish as combined above is located at the attachment hook (40, see ¶0040). The hook (40) is recited as being located at the top (21) of the step system (see ¶0039), but does not explicitly recite that the slot is in the same plane as the top step.
The examiner takes the position that making the side-mounted handrail pockets even with the top step would be nothing more than a matter of design choice. The examiner separately notes that Applicant seeks to claim a patent on the arrangement of parts. To this point, the Applicant is informed that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It is further emphasized that Applicant has not advanced any novel or unexpected results or provided criticality for the arrangement. As noted by the courts, "it is well-settled that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability." See Span-Deck, Inc., v. Fab-Con, Incorporated et al., 215 USPQ 835, 841. The particular configuration taught by the Applicant "appears to be no more than a logical and obvious step forward which accomplishes no new and unexpected result, but which is admittedly of economic importance." Id.
Regarding claim 9, while Krish from the above combination provides for a pair of elongated generally rectangular handrails (62), it does not specifically provide the dimensions of the pocket to accept 2x4 dimensional lumber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to make the handrail pockets sized to accept 2x4 lumber since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art -See In re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The motivation for doing so would be use a larger-sized handrail so that it is more rigid to support heavier users/loads.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly, U.S. Pat. No. 7,992,681 to Anderson et al. which discloses a detachable trailer step assembly including a handrail pocket that is substantially co-planar to the top step.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights